NYTimes: China's Upbeat Governor in Tibet Promises Investment
CC Tang
time (and visiting both places for a long time). I'm sure he's
despised in some circles in Beijing... but today's article will surely
make him despised in some circles in Dharamasala as well.
He joins a chorus of Western reporters (like Pomfret of the Post, Chu
of the LA Times, and always Pamela Logan) who've been able to visit
Tibet, and increasingly offers a realistic view at the complexity of
modern Tibet... a view that differs dramatically from the propaganda
being distributed out of Dharasmala and Beijing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/07/international/asia/07TIBE.html
China's Upbeat Governor in Tibet Promises Investment
By ERIK ECKHOLM
HASA, Tibet, Nov. 6 — China's top official here said today that
a determined influx of investment from Beijing over the next decade
would bring prosperity and social harmony to Tibet, and he dismissed
any notion that the money was intended to dilute the culture of a
region occupied by Chinese Communist troops more than 50 years ago.
"Conditions for large numbers of Tibetans are still quite backward,"
the official, Guo Jinlong, said in a rare interview inside the
sprawling government compound here. "This is all for the good of the
people and to strengthen national unity."
Mr. Guo, who is the Communist Party secretary of Tibet, provided
details of a strategy adopted by Chinese leaders last summer: to put
Tibet on a fast track to development while giving no ground to the
Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader who fled Tibet during an uprising
against Chinese rule in 1959.
While the Dalai Lama has called for talks on autonomy for Tibet and
has become a global spokesman against Chinese repression, Chinese
officials portray him as a deceitful separatist and appear to have no
intention of letting him return.
Instead, they have undertaken a new push to integrate the region
through a vast tide of government investment and subsidies.
Altogether, Mr. Guo said, central government spending in Tibet in the
next five years will be double what it was in the last five.
Some foreign experts have characterized the Chinese plan as
unrealistic, economically and politically, given the region's status
as an economic backwater and the fervent though largely hidden popular
support for the Dalai Lama.
Past development here has improved the welfare of many Tibetans but
also brought new problems and resentments as ethnic Chinese from
surrounding provinces have been enticed to migrate, often displacing
Tibetans in the economy.
But Mr. Guo, an urbane and polished official who has served in Tibet
since 1993, becoming secretary in autumn 2000, dismissed any potential
negative impact on the culture of Tibet's deeply spiritual people.
He scoffed, for example, at claims that Han Chinese, the country's
dominant ethnic group, are overwhelming the Tibetan population,
pointing to census data last year indicating that 93 percent of the
region's 2.6 million people are ethnic Tibetans.
Critics say that the data omit large numbers of unregistered migrants
in cities as well as the large military presence, and that new
projects, like Tibet's first railroad to the outside world, may
further marginalize the native population.
Through the crash efforts, Tibet's economy will grow at more than 12
percent a year in the next five years, Mr. Gao predicted, well above
the rate in the rest of China. Incomes here will match the national
average by 2012, he said.
As for the Tibetan spiritual leader, Mr. Guo asserted today that
"public support for the Dalai Lama has drastically declined" and that
he is seen by most residents as a "schemer, a split-ist and an
opportunist."
The droves of pilgrims — some carrying forbidden pictures of the
Dalai Lama — who pray at major Buddhist temples, the private
comments of many Tibetans and the assessments of many foreign experts
all suggest that this may be wishful thinking. But the evident
spirituality here also calls into question charges that the Chinese
are destroying the religious culture.
Since he assumed power here, Mr. Guo has been praised for taking a
somewhat softer line on some religious conflicts than his predecessor,
who had offended Tibetans with his crusade to end Buddhist practices
by all party members, government officials and even their relatives.
Mr. Guo is said to have relaxed the pressures on government employees
and their families. But today he defended the prohibition on religious
practice by party members, noting that atheism is an inherent part of
the Communist creed. He denied that this resulted in discrimination,
even though top government positions usually require party membership.
The government officially supports religious freedom but it keeps a
tight leash on monasteries, limiting the number of monks and arresting
those who are defiant, as well as anyone suspected of aiding the Dalai
Lama. It has supported the rebuilding of numerous monasteries that
were destroyed during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
The mixed official stance was evident during the interview.
Behind Mr. Guo in the ornate conference room was a wall-sized copper,
silver and brass image of the Potala, the former residence of the
Dalai Lama. Mr. Guo placed on his guests traditional Tibetan scarves,
which are religious symbols, and a brass plaque celebrating the
Potala, — which, however reviled its last resident, is now
proudly protected by China as a World Heritage Site and a big tourist
draw.
In response to a question, Mr. Guo said he did not view China's
struggle against the Dalai Lama and Tibetan separatists as part of the
global war on terror. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing, while declaring
support for the American campaign, has added that it expects sympathy
for its own struggles against terrorism, particularly mentioning the
mostly Muslim province of Xinjiang.
That expectation has led to speculation that China would use the
global antiterror campaign as an excuse to crack down even more
harshly on "separatist" enemies at home, like monks who show support
for the Dalai Lama.
But Mr. Guo expressed confidence about China's rule in Tibet.
"Tibet has had some violence in the past, but it is basically stable
today," he said. "I think that as the economy develops further and
people become more prosperous, it will be even more so, and the
peoples' commitment to socialism with Chinese characteristics will be
even stronger."
While the Beijing government has long provided subsidies to ethnic
minority regions, the new plans appear to go far beyond any previous
ones and Tibet will be a special beneficiary of the grand Western
Development Program.
Over the next five years, Mr. Guo said, the central government will
greatly increase direct payments to the Tibetan government, providing
90 percent of its regular budget to permit increased spending on
education and training, and will finance numerous large projects in
transportation, power supply and agriculture.
Through such subsidies, farmers here have been relieved of the taxes
that cause strife through much of rural China. And, unlike the schools
in most of China, schools here may not charge fees to any students,
from primary through high school.
yolanda
balanced. Why would you assume it would be despised in Dharamsala?
What the new Governor says is, rightly, reported, but we need not,
certainly do not, accept him at his word.
I have so many questions for you, because you seem in many ways to be
reasonable and yet you are obviously a strong supporter of the PRC in
the matter of Tibet, and I cannot fathom why, or frankly why you care
so strongly about the issue, since you obviously have no personal
connection to Tibet or Tibetans.
One question, in your personal experience with the Chinese government
have you found what they say to be true?
I guess I would also ask, what do you believe is going on in Tibet?
What do you want to happen there? What do you see as a good solution?
To partially answer your other posts, yes I've read Shakya and know
of but have not read T. Grumfeld. Have you read HH the Dalai Lama,
John Avedon, Mary Craig, A. David Neel, Harrer? Yes I read and
respect the TIN, as well as the WTN and Pamela Logan is interesting
though I wonder how much of her "balanced" view is to suck up to
Chinese authorities in order to continue her, definitely worthy,
projects.
I am married to a Tibetan who lived in Tibet for twenty years, until
1986, and have lived among Tibetans for 6 years, so I couldn't really
count all the nomads, layperson and politicos I know. I have not been
to Tibet for the simple reason that my husband and I fear for his
safety in returning, though he has not seen his family in 17 years.
Do you have any idea how it feels to fear returning home, to fear
visiting your family for fear they will have reprisals from the
government, or to fear that the gov't may decide to arrest one, for
nothing? Reflect on that for a moment.
I wonder why you discount out of hand any news from dharamsala.
Dharamsala is the point where, as you well know, Tibetans come out of
Tibet. I interviewed a number of Tibetans in Dharamsala, and since
they are free to speak there, and they are "freshly" out of Tibet,
where better to get the straight scoop?
More later, though, honestly, I see that you are not really interested
in learning or hearing the truth. You have some agenda that seeks to
devalue the valid claims of Tibetans. That's your problem.
I do apologize for the "get a life" comment. It's beneath this
discussion. Rather, I should say, get a book, get a phone. Meet and
know Tibetans. Corresponding with Buchung Tsering and reading only
the books and articles that agree with your view doesn't really
constitute educating yourself on the matter, does it?
.yolanda
cc...@hotmail.com (CC Tang) wrote in message news:<65030f86.01110...@posting.google.com>...
LT Lee
For some unspecified reason, he seems to think Tibetans are a
different kind of human. For example, he described Tibetans in the
following paragraph as deeply spiritual people as if he knows some
other peoples like Han and other Chinese minorities are not deeply
spiritual.
"But Mr. Guo, an urbane and polished official who has served in Tibet
since 1993, becoming secretary in autumn 2000, dismissed any potential
negative impact on the culture of Tibet's deeply spiritual people."
All living cultures change with time and with contact to the outside
world. Cultures that do not change are dead cultures. If there are
undesriable changes related to the Tibetan culture, he should have
pointed them out and substantiated them.
cc...@hotmail.com (CC Tang) wrote in message news:<65030f86.01110...@posting.google.com>...
CC Tang
> I'm a Tibet supporter and Eckholm's article strikes me as reasonably
> balanced.
There's progress for ya... we agree.
> Why would you assume it would be despised in Dharamsala?
> What the new Governor says is, rightly, reported, but we need not,
> certainly do not, accept him at his word.
There's certainly an element of the exiles at Dharamsala with a
political agenda first.. and a pursuit of "truth" second. I can't
imagine you'd deny that.
From a propaganda point of view, Eckholm's discussion of an appearent
relaxation in controls on religion, beneficial policies toward
Tibetans, and even economic development (however modest or qualified
his comments) will not further the cause of those who's end-cause
boils down to two words: "Free Tibet."
And that's why this article is interesting. You're right, what the
Governor says is interesting but not definite (it's not like many in
the West would take a Communist Chinese provincial governor's word at
face value)... but Eckholm describes Tibet, not Guo's promises but
what's actually there, in a manner that isn't consistent with a
black/white portrayal of China = evil, Tibet = oppressed but good.
> I have so many questions for you, because you seem in many ways to be
> reasonable and yet you are obviously a strong supporter of the PRC in
> the matter of Tibet, and I cannot fathom why, or frankly why you care
> so strongly about the issue, since you obviously have no personal
> connection to Tibet or Tibetans.
I do try to be reasonable, and yet by no stretch of the imagination do
I believe that is contradictory to the position of being a "strong
supporter of the PRC."
It's precisely you seem so surprised by this possibility that I feel
so strongly about the issue. The dialogue on this matter has been
one-sided for so long that some balance is needed to restore the
"Tibet Question" back into an event involving human beings, instead of
sub-humans (the Chinese) vs near-saints (the Tibetans). I haven't
taken the "PRC position", but I certainly am trying to move everyone
who's willing to listen to reason closer to the middle (which
inevitably means closer to the PRC position).
And beyond that, if you really want a "personal" angle, I'm a Chinese
national (although primarily raised in the West) who cares very much
about his country, and all of the citizens of his country. And yes,
for now, that includes the Tibetans.
> One question, in your personal experience with the Chinese government
> have you found what they say to be true?
Uniformly? Of course not. But certainly, based on my personal
experiences/knowledge, Western perceptions of the PRC in general is
incredibly uninformed as well.
> I guess I would also ask, what do you believe is going on in Tibet?
> What do you want to happen there? What do you see as a good solution?
These are all hard questions to answer briefly, but I will try.
THE CAUSE:
I believe what is going on in Tibet is *caused* by a battle of
conflicting nationalism. I believe that Chinese intellectuals have
been brought up for hundreds years to treasure every inch of Chinese
"territory" (territory they see as Chinese), and Tibet falls within
that category. I believe that any government in Beijing, whether it's
the PRC or any likely replacement, would place great value on
maintaining Tibet as part of China in some form.
I believe that Tibetan nationalists, focused around the 13th and 14th
Dalai Lamas (and their immediate supporters), strongly treasure their
own independent identity.
I believe that is the source of the ultimate tension. Add in mistrust
based on decades of "misunderstanding" (Beijing believing Tibetan
theocracy desires a return to a religious state, Dharasamala believing
Beijing desires an athiest egalitarian society)... and you end up with
fundamental disagreement at the very top.
I don't believe this Chinese nationalism is fascist in nature; I don't
think anyone wants to enslave the Tibetans in order to satisfy their
own pride. I believe that if the majority of Chinese *truly* believed
the Tibetans desired independence of their own free will, they'd
accept it. However, for the forseeable future, few in China will
accept any such statements as "free will." They believe they are
products of a religiously faithful people following the words of a
single man (or 'clique') watching out for his own interests first.
WHAT'S GOING ON:
I believe that what is actually *happening* in Tibet has two elements.
First, the CCP has always seen itself as having a leading role in
improving the lives of the Chinese people (no insult intended when I
include the Tibetans in this category). Remember, they (as well as
the KMT) were founded 90 years ago by idealistic college students
believing they must adopt the "modern" ways of the West and actively
transform their nation into a stronger one. (This is a CCP belief,
not necessarily a "Chinese" one.)
They believe that religious faith must come secondary to this notion
of Western development... that Tibetan farmers donating their valuable
income to local monastaries instead of contributing to a better
education for their child is a great loss to society. Just as the US
bans recreational drug use for nothing more than moral reasons, the
CCP plays the role of activist in trying to improve society. (Family
planning falls into this category, by the way.)
Despite what some in the exiled community says, I don't believe this
is a policy of cultural genocide. As I said in a post a few days ago,
I believe the CCP would be perfectly content if, in the year 2100, an
ethnic Tibetan engineer at the local research institute takes time out
of his busy day designing rocket engines to spin prayer wheels,
understand dharma, donate to the local monastary, or go on a
month-long pilgrimage.
It's the religious beliefs of poor, starving Tibetan farmers who
literally believes the fate of his future reincarnation is dependent
on the amount he gives to the local monastaries that bothers the CCP.
They believe it's this type of world-view/society that led to the
great weakness of Chinese society (and Tibetan society) in the past,
and they want to move on.
And this is the same reason Chinese is taught in middle-schools...
it's the same reason all science classes in Chinese universities will
be taught in English within 10 years (as was recently announced).
It's not because Beijing wants to force the English language upon the
Chinese or the Chinese languge upon the Tibetans... it's a simple
measure of what is most economically efficient/competitive.
Second, China is taking brutal mechanisms to suppress political
dissent. The tactics used in Tibet are certainly no different than
those applied in Tiananmen or against the Falun Gong... or anywhere
else in China during the Cultural Revolution.
As part of this broad political suppression, religious
activities/centers seen as participating in the political movement are
harshly repressed. I don't deny this political aspect, but those who
claim an organized campaign to destroy Tibetan religion/culture isn't
paying attention to the rest of China.
Religious practice has started to thrive in most every part of China,
and non-politically active ethnic minorities leave within their own
communities without any hint of cultural/religious pressure. Look
into Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture some time, or any of the Hui
Autonomous Regions/Prefectures, or read "Mr. China's Son" by an ethnic
Bai from Yunnan (his name slips my mind).
I'm not seeking to justify these actions, but it's important to
understand Beijing's (and the TGIE's) motivations if the purpose is to
reach a settlement acceptable to both.
Third, what is happening in Tibet is tremendous economic development
unfortunately biased in favor of the more "successful" majority.
However, this isn't significantly different from what you would see
in, say, the United States. I assume you'd agree there's no longer an
active campaign to oppress or economically deprive
African-Americans... and yet they still struggle in every department.
They earn less, are more poorly educated, more likely to die a violent
death, more likely to be convicted of a crime, have lower life
expectancies... why? Because fixing these long-term flaws is *hard*.
I'm sure there are many Tibetans bitter about Han economic
encroachment. Go to south-central LA some time and find out if the
African-Americans are bitter about the economic encroachment of
Korean/Vietnamese immigrants...
But if there's an alternative to building railroads and investing
money, I sure don't know what it may be. China already has strong
affirmative action programs for Tibetans in education/finance, and I
hope they continue (if not increased). It may take decades, or even
longer, but eventually the Tibetans will catch up.
Alleging some type of a political conspiracy is wishful thinking by
those with a political agenda, unsupported by an objective reading of
the facts.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN:
China won't be forced out of Tibet by international pressure. I think
that if Tibetan nationalism remains strong in 50-200 years... when the
Tibetans are rich/strong/empowered within Chinese society... the
Chinese won't stand in their way if they choose to secede.
China will continue its economic campaigns to develop Tibet. The road
here will get harder before it gets easier... we've already seen the
social/environmental degredation in places like Shenzhen... Tibet will
go through that before its rebirth as a "modern" city.
Tibetans will get wealthier and more educated. More and more Tibetans
will graduate from universities, until it is the mainland Tibetans
that begin to dominate international Tibetan affairs over the exiled
Tibetans and their descendents. This will also represent a dramatic
shift in events.
Political/religious nationalism will not fade away as easily as
Beijing hopes. This is why I feel strongly a realistic settlement
that satisfies both sides would be desirable for everyone involved.
The 14th Dalai Lama can have an incredible influence on the future of
Tibet/China relations, but he will never be given the chance as long
as he presents himself as an international figure seeking to assert
the (former) independence of the Tibetan state. Beijing will never
trust him until he makes a clear break with the "splittist" path...
something more final than even the 17th Agreement.
> To partially answer your other posts, yes I've read Shakya and know
> of but have not read T. Grumfeld. Have you read HH the Dalai Lama,
> John Avedon, Mary Craig, A. David Neel, Harrer? Yes I read and
> respect the TIN, as well as the WTN and Pamela Logan is interesting
> though I wonder how much of her "balanced" view is to suck up to
> Chinese authorities in order to continue her, definitely worthy,
> projects.
I have to admit that I haven't. I assumed that the perspective of HH
Dalai Lama and his biographers would be pretty well captured within
the material presented by the Tibet government-in-exile (which I have
read)... and probably not as accurate as those of Tsering Shakya. Am
I wrong?
I don't want to defend Pamela Logan when I don't know the answer to
your question... but I think if you read some of her writings it's
difficult to hold a cynical view of her beliefs. I'm sure she censors
some of her comments in order not to "offend", but I don't believe
she'd knowingly mislead.
> I am married to a Tibetan who lived in Tibet for twenty years, until
> 1986, and have lived among Tibetans for 6 years, so I couldn't really
> count all the nomads, layperson and politicos I know.
Interesting, he went into exile in 1986? What part of Tibet? What's
his story?
> I have not been
> to Tibet for the simple reason that my husband and I fear for his
> safety in returning, though he has not seen his family in 17 years.
Well, I don't know the specific circumstances of your husband... but
I'm sure you already know that thousands (if not more) of Tibetan
exiles return to Tibet every year to visit family. China is content
with the status quo, and they don't make it a habit to arrest Tibetans
returning from exile (unless they participate in political activities,
obviously).
> Do you have any idea how it feels to fear returning home, to fear
> visiting your family for fear they will have reprisals from the
> government, or to fear that the gov't may decide to arrest one, for
> nothing? Reflect on that for a moment.
Obviously one of a thousand tragic things about the situation of Tibet
today. But hardly an unfamiliar one to any mainlander familiar with
the Chinese situation of the past 50 years.
> I wonder why you discount out of hand any news from dharamsala.
> Dharamsala is the point where, as you well know, Tibetans come out of
> Tibet. I interviewed a number of Tibetans in Dharamsala, and since
> they are free to speak there, and they are "freshly" out of Tibet,
> where better to get the straight scoop?
I definitely do not discount out of hand all news from Dharamsala. I
read it with a critical eye, just as I read anything coming out of
Xinhua.
I believe that Dharamsala is also the origin of much one-sided
propaganda. Before I upset you, let me qualify that by saying this
propaganda is as biased and unrealistic as that coming out of
Beijing... that is to say, sometimes the facts coming out of both are
truthful and valuable. However, I do believe that Dharamasala runs
"re-education" campaigns, teaching newly-arrived Tibetans about
Chinese brutality if they haven't experienced it themselves.
I truly believe that your experiences would be different if you
visited Tibet (with an open mind!!), and accepted the possibility that
there are Tibetans that feel differently. I refer you to this
article:
Brian Jackson
>"But Mr. Guo, an urbane and polished official who has served in Tibet
>since 1993, becoming secretary in autumn 2000, dismissed any potential
>negative impact on the culture of Tibet's deeply spiritual people."
ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) reacted thusly:
>Don't know how extensive had Erik Eckholm traveled inside Tibet.
>For some unspecified reason, he seems to think Tibetans are a
>different kind of human. For example, he described Tibetans in the
>following paragraph as deeply spiritual people as if he knows some
>other peoples like Han and other Chinese minorities are not deeply
>spiritual.
This is another fine example of how hard you have to work at finding
your "demonisation of Chinese". From this single sentence you deduce
that Eckholm believes Tibetans to be a "different kind of human", and
therefore that Chinese and the other ethnic minorites are demonised.
Do you really disagree that Tibetans are generally known to be "deeply
spiritual", generally speaking to be devout in their religion? Is
there any real reason to challenge this, apart from trying to contrive
something about racist journalists and "demonisation"? Anything else
you could mine out of that sentence - I bet you could. What about
"urbane and polished official", maybe that could be a back handed
swipe, eh? Like a smooth-talking, slick lawyer, I just bet that urbane
and polished is a veiled insult. And what about how he doesn't
"discuss" or "explain" about potential negative impact - he
"dismissed" it. Obviously this Erik Eckholm guy must really hate
Chinese.
Brian
--
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
-- George Bernard Shaw
LT Lee
Spirituality is different from religiosity. Tibetan is not more
spiritual than any other race or ethnicity. Spirituality is the
seeking of the a transcendant being or Dao. Religiosity is
articulating this seeking of the transcend in the form of a religion.
Let me illustrate the difference using Paul(Saul) from the Bible. Paul
was born a Jew and he used to persecute Christians. So he was
religious from the point of view of Judaism and anti-religion from the
point of view Christianity. He was converted to Christianity later and
became the greatest Christian. Now he was religious from the point of
view of Christianity but anti-religion from the point of view of
Judaism. However, the same spirituality explained both his zeal and
devotion, first to Judaism and later to Christianity.
I will have no problem if Erik Eckholm wrote Tibetan is a deeply
religious people. Spirituality, however, is universal. Many different
peoples had created and devoted themselves to many gods/dao/emptiness
throughout human history. Spirituality is not ethnicity related and it
is not limited to Tibetans.
Can't really tell whether Erik Eckholm hated the Chinese. It is
obvious that not many will make racist remarks openly. But subtle
remarks or whether one can prevent racist attitude from showing
inadvertently is a differnt story.
Anyway, neither you nor I can change Erik Eckholm's thought. I am
convinced that all ethnicities are equally spiritual. Aren't you? Or
do you think a certain race/ethnicity, like Tibetan, is more
spiritual.
--------------------------------------
Definitions according to some experts below:
http://conference.tmn.com/~atp1/LIB/weekly_forums/dluk/spirdef.html
Krippner, S. and Welch, P. (1993). Spiritual Dimensions of Healing.
New York: Irvington.
We use the word "spiritual" to describe those aspects of human
behavior and experience that reflect an alleged transcendent
intelligence or process...We take the position that "spiritual" is not
a synonym for "religious" because a religion is an institutionalized
body of believers who accept a common set of beliefs, practices, and
rituals regarding spiritual concerns and issues. People who have
internalized these beliefs and practices are generally "spiritual." In
addition, many people are "spiritual" without being "religious" in the
sense of participating in organized religion. However, one can be
"religious" without being "spiritual"--many members of religious
institutions perform the necessary rituals and accept the creed (at
least superficially), but their ethics, morals, and opportunities for
day-to-day practice of their religion do not match their professed
beliefs. (p.6)
Vaughan, F. (1991). Spiritual issues in psychotherapy. Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 23(2), 105-119.
Spirituality presupposes certain qualities of mind, including
compassion, gratitude, awareness of a transcendent dimension, and an
appreciation for life which brings meaning and purpose to existence.
Whereas spirituality is essentially a subjective experience of the
sacred, religion involves subscribing to a set of beliefs or doctrines
that are institutionalized. (p. 105)
As an innate capacity that exists in every human being,
psychologically healthy spirituality is not limited to any one set of
doctrines or practices. From a psychological perspective, spirituality
is a universal experience, not a universal theology. Spirituality may
be theistic as in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, non-theistic as in
Buddhism, or polytheistic as in Hinduism. It can also be humanistic,
as expressed by Abraham Maslow in his research on peak experiences and
transcendence. Spirituality can be found at the heart of the great
religions and in no religion. Spirituality can be found everywhere,
not only in temples, churches and synagogues, not only in the stars,
not only in music and song and dance, not only in the beauty of nature
or the intimacy of an intimate relationship, but in every moment of
every day of ordinary life. (p. 116)
Walker, A. (Ed.) (1991). Thesaurus of psychological index terms (2nd
ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychological Association.
Spirituality: "Degree of involvement or state of awareness or devotion
to a higher being or life philosophy. Not always related to
conventional religious beliefs" (p. 208)
Religiosity: "Degree of one's religious involvement, devotion to
religious beliefs, or adherence to religious observances...term is
associated with religious organizations and religious personnel" (p.
184)
> Brian
Kalsang Y Tashi
An interesting point you picked on but i simply see Eric Eckholm
bringing into light what we Tibetans as followers of Lord Buddha have
strived for - inner strength in other words spirituality. I
understand that religiousness is more of a tradition and spirituality
something abstract. It would be stereotypical to group all Tibetans
as being religious or spiritual. But Buddhism having been a part of
our culture and a way of life from time immemorial, it legitimately
represents the majority. Every country works towards preserving its
culture as each has the right to. Tibet is a country too and Tibetans
hold their culture dear. And when this culture is at stake in the
hands of PRC, isn't it our birthright to resist? We are human beings
too and simply ask for the land that we have known to be ours.
LT Lee
Hi Kalsang,
I think I make my point on spirituality clear. Spirituality is
universal. No one people is more spiritual than the other. If you
disagree, please list some races/ethncities that you consider less
spirtual.
On Tibetan culture
Two points:
1. Culture changes with time and space. Therefore Chinese from the
mainland, from Taiwan, from Hong Kong, from Singapore, from the U.S.
and many other places of the world all have a slightly different
vision of what Chinese culture should be. Are one version better than
the other? Similar, are Tibetan culture borned and nutured in
Dharamsala, in the U.S. better Tibetan culture.
Currently, millions of Tibet, many of them PRC government officials,
are working hard to solve zillions of their daily problems. Their
efforts are also shaping the living Tibetan culture. They are also the
Tibetan culture, if not the mainstream. Anyway, if you feel Tibetan
culture is at stake, why don't you join them?
2. Culture is not limited in locality nor is it about genes. All
people who truly believe on a certain culture could choose to live
according to that particular cultural ideal whether mainstream or not.
In this sense, a culture will not be at stake as long as it has enough
true believers. The latest report indicated that many non-tibetan
chinese were joing Tibetan buddhism.
On Chinese's Tibet
There is no god devining which piece of land belongs to which people.
International boundary is a matter of international agreement and
acceptance. It is the mandate of heaven in Chinese term. Reports from
both western and Chinese observers seem to indicate cultural
renaisance in Tibet. Of course, if you are a Tibetan insider, I would
sure like to hear from you in what way PRC officials, many of them
Tibetans, are making your life and your fellow citizens' lives more
difficult.
yolanda
>
> I think I make my point on spirituality clear. Spirituality is
> universal. No one people is more spiritual than the other. If you
> disagree, please list some races/ethncities that you consider less
> spirtual.
Aren't you being extremely oversensitive? No matter your definition
of spirituality, it is clear that Tibetans as a whole are more
spiritual than Americans(that would be me), or Germans, or Chinese.
Spirituality is more deeply woven into the fabric of the average
Tibetan life than it is almost any other people I can think of, and I
have travelled a lot. You seem to be be suggesting that someone is
maligning China if they say Tibetans are spiritual. Isn't this
another way of insisting that we look at Tibetans only through a
Chinese filter? Do you want to suggest that we are being unfair to
Chinese people if we say they aren't as spiritual as Tibetans? China
has been spectacularly anti-religious for some time, by it's own
definition, it's own desire, it's own will. You can't have it both
ways.
>
> On Tibetan culture
>
> Currently, millions of Tibet, many of them PRC government officials,
> are working hard to solve zillions of their daily problems. Their
> efforts are also shaping the living Tibetan culture. They are also the
> Tibetan culture, if not the mainstream. Anyway, if you feel Tibetan
> culture is at stake, why don't you join them?
Because life for a Tibetan in Tibet is at worst a nightmare, and at
best, a constant struggle to overcome the multitude of ways in which
the PRC offers advantages to Chinese-speaking, Chinese-loving citizens
of Tibet. In an extreme case, we could say that the Jews in Auschwitz
were also shaping living Jewish culture at the time, but is that
really an example you want to hold up as something desirable? I'm not
suggesting that Lhasa is like Auschwitz, just that your argument has
holes.
Kalsang Y Tashi
LEE, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT SPIRITUALITY IS UNIVERSAL. BUT IF YOU READ
THE DEFINIATIONS THOROUGHLY,
(Spirituality presupposes certain qualities of mind, including
COMPASSION, gratitude, AWARENESS OF A TRANCENDENT DIMENSION, and an
appreciation for life which brings MEANING AND PURPOSE TO EXISTENCE.
Whereas spirituality is essentially a subjective experience of the
sacred, religion involves subscribing to A SET OF BELIEFS or doctrines
that are institutionalized.)
RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY CAN BE INTERTWINED. HOW? WHAT HAS GIVEN
'MEANING AND PURPOSE TO OUR EXISTENCE' IS THE 'SET OF BUDDHIST
BELIEFS' THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED. HOWEVER, I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A RELIGION TO BE SPIRITUAL. I AM NOT SAYING EITHER THAT
ONLY TIBETANS ARE SPIRITUALLY ORIENTED OR THAT WE ARE BETTER. SIMPLY
THAT OUR BUDDHIST VALUES AND IDEOLOGIES PROPEL US MORE TOWARDS INNER
ACHIEVEMENTS/SPIRITUALITY.
TIBETAN CULTURE: CULTURE DOES CHANGE WITH TIME. BUT THE CULTURE THAT
I AM TALKING ABOUT IS THE INDIGENOUS CULTURE, THE ONE THAT PURELY
DEFINES YOU AS A TIBETAN OR CHINESE. THUS, TIBETAN CULTURE IS ITS
LANGUAGE(TIBETAN),RELGION(BUDDHISM)AND CUSTOMS. HOW CAN WE NOT SAY
'IT' IS AT RISK WHEN CHINESE IS GIVEN PRIORITY OVER OUR LANGUAGE, WHEN
OUR NUNS AND MONKS ARE FORCED TO GIVE UP THEIR BELIEFS AND OVER
HUNDREDS OF OUR MONASTERIES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED? HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY
ALL THOSE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION GOING ON INSIDE TIBET? WHY WOULD
HUNDREDS OF TIBETAN YOUNGSTERS AND ELDERS ALIKE FLEE TIBET EVERY YEAR
AND TELL STORIES OF TORTURE AND UNHAPPINESS? WHY HAS CHINA HELD
NGAWANG CHOMPEL CAPTIVE FOR ALL THAT HE WAS DOING WAS TO LEARN,
EXPLORE AND PRESERVE TIBETAN FOLK MUSIC, A PART OF OUR CULTURE? NOW
TELL ME, ISN'T CHINA UPTO DESTROYING OUR CULTURE? IT IS NOT A
QUESTION OF WHETHER TIBETAN CULTURE OUTSIDE TIBET IS BETTER OR WORSE,
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PRESERVE WHAT IS INDINENOUSLY OURS. OUR
TIBETAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS INSIDE TIBET WORKING UNDER THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY WITH THE IMPOSED TACTICS. I
DON'T BLAME THEM. WE ARE ALL IN THIS FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE.
IF AGREEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCES ON BOUNDRIES ARE DONE UNDER FORCE AND
REPRESSION, WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THAT AS LEGITIMATE? IF YOU HAVEN'T,
READ SOME OF THE NON-CHINESE BOOKS ON TIBETAN HISTORY (NOT THAT YOU
WOULD AGREE WITH IT) AND LET'S SEE WHICH HOLDS MORE TRUTH.
CC Tang
> But Buddhism having been a part of
> our culture and a way of life from time immemorial, it legitimately
> represents the majority. Every country works towards preserving its
> culture as each has the right to. Tibet is a country too and Tibetans
> hold their culture dear. And when this culture is at stake in the
> hands of PRC, isn't it our birthright to resist? We are human beings
> too and simply ask for the land that we have known to be ours.
Kalsang,
I agree with much of what you say. Yes, Buddhism has been part of
Tibetan culture and way of life for a long time (not time
immemorial... but 1200 years is close enough). And yes, everyone has
the right to resist changes to their culture.
That does not mean, however, resisting change is an obligation... it
does not mean that all change must be resisted. Are the specific
changes in Tibet to be resisted? Is Beijing really trying to
destroying Tibetan Buddhism as part of Tibetan culture?
Some would point to the events of the past 50 years and say.. of
course. But I find it interesting that if you look at the modern
histories we now have available, some of the Tibetan leadership was
making these claims long before the Chinese Communists set foot within
Tibet. They were resisting *ALL* change.
And yet, others of the Tibetan leadership felt strongly they could
co-exist within China and welcome change... make change cooperative.
Everyone from Panchen Rinpoche to Geta Rinpoche to Geshe Sherab
Gyatso... to the vast majority of Khampas (who offered great support
to the PLA in its eventual 'invasion')... accepted the role the PRC
wanted to play in Tibet. The PRC and the Tibetan government had
agreed to make these necessary reforms, together.
Much of what happened in Tibet from 1955-1980 were due to mistakes.
The "changes" forced upon Tibet, and the rest of China as well, were
extreme and brought great suffering to everyone. The cooperation
between the PRC/Dalai Lama obviously ended in 1959... mostly because
the tension between acceptable and unacceptable changes were too
great.
The exile community has focused on much of that, and insist that there
was never an agreement for cooperation on change, and that today there
is no cooperation, and that in the future there can be no cooperation
for the changes the PRC desires. They're really remnants of the "no
change" faction, now transformed into a political cause trying to win
a fight they've been losing for 50 years.
I don't find their position accurate. There is definitely room within
Tibet for cooperation on deciding the nature of modernization. There
is much public criticism of restrictions on Tibetan Buddhism... but is
that really a restriction on religion? Or is that a restriction on
areas of political activism?
There are many examples of other devoutly faithful cultures in the
PRC, and they've since recovered from the Cultural Revolution to find
harmony in modernization and religion. Look at the Hui communities,
who take great pride in their Islamic faith as well.
Tibetans are still cooperating within the framework of the PRC in
developing Tibet today, and Tibetan culture isn't the focus of attack.
It *is* under attack, because of political issues and the simple
economics of globalization... and I feel strongly the Dalai Lama can
play his role in moderating the affect of this attack.
To do so, he needs to accept that Chinese cooperation in modernization
can not be uniformly rejected. He needs to truly accept that the
future of China/Tibet are intertwined for the near future. I'm not
asking him to stay silent on religious persecution or racist
government policies when they occur... after all, the 10th Panchen
Lama didn't remain silent on these same issues.
He can't stop the changes occuring to Tibetan culture, there are far
too many forces allied against him. But he can take advantage of
today's opportunity to work with Beijing to make the changes
acceptable to the Tibetan people.
yolanda
>Is Beijing really trying to
> destroying Tibetan Buddhism as part of Tibetan culture?
Have a look at this article, which explores the recent destruction of
nuns and monks huts at Serthar, and the forced removal of their
teacher. There are links to photos at the bottom of the page.
http://www.savetibet.org/about/pressreleases/release_010926_Sertharupdate.html
It looks to me like Beijing is interested in preserving the appearance
of Tibetan Buddhism as a means to:
1. get tourist dollars
2. get world opinion off its back.
This does not include any desire or action taken to Actually preserve
or allow true Tibetan Buddhism, much the opposite. Though you buy
into the PRC claims that His Holiness is a political creature, the
Tibetans, and most of the world, to be frank, sees him as a
fundamentally spiritual person whose credibility is so strong and
position so respected by Tibetans and others that he has had the
political thrust upon him, and taken it in order to serve his people.
I really, really, really wish you would study up on HH a bit. Me or
anyone else saying he's not what you think is spitting in the wind.
Investigate!
LT Lee
> > Hi Kalsang,
> >
> > I think I make my point on spirituality clear. Spirituality is
> > universal. No one people is more spiritual than the other. If you
> > disagree, please list some races/ethncities that you consider less
> > spirtual.
>
> Aren't you being extremely oversensitive? No matter your definition
> of spirituality, it is clear that Tibetans as a whole are more
> spiritual than Americans(that would be me), or Germans, or Chinese.
> Spirituality is more deeply woven into the fabric of the average
> Tibetan life than it is almost any other people I can think of, and I
> have travelled a lot. You seem to be be suggesting that someone is
> maligning China if they say Tibetans are spiritual. Isn't this
> another way of insisting that we look at Tibetans only through a
> Chinese filter? Do you want to suggest that we are being unfair to
> Chinese people if we say they aren't as spiritual as Tibetans? China
> has been spectacularly anti-religious for some time, by it's own
> definition, it's own desire, it's own will. You can't have it both
> ways.
What make you think Germans and Americans are not spiritual?
Western countries are now capitalistic. But do you know what had
contributed to the rise of capitalism? A convincing answer provided by
the German sociologist, Max Weber: The puritans seeking God's will.
As for Chinese, sounds like you don't know Chinese culture at all. The
common goals of many chinese people is inner saint and outer king
since Mencius' time, about 1000 years before Buddhism had reached
Tibet. During the history of China, the Chinese people also managed
to combined buddhism and daoism into Chen buddhism. Later elements of
chen buddhism were absorbed by confucianism to creat neo-confucianism.
For several years spanning the Ming and the Qing dynasties, literally
millions of neo-confucianist scholars had participated in one the
largest project of humanity: how to transcend themselves such that
they could reach heaven's way through acting out the human way to the
fullest extent.
By the way, neither Chinese nor the PRC is anti-religion. Rather, it
is protection of citizens. Or do you think theocracy is the only way
for being religious?
>
> >
> > On Tibetan culture
> >
> > Currently, millions of Tibet, many of them PRC government officials,
> > are working hard to solve zillions of their daily problems. Their
> > efforts are also shaping the living Tibetan culture. They are also the
> > Tibetan culture, if not the mainstream. Anyway, if you feel Tibetan
> > culture is at stake, why don't you join them?
>
> Because life for a Tibetan in Tibet is at worst a nightmare, and at
> best, a constant struggle to overcome the multitude of ways in which
> the PRC offers advantages to Chinese-speaking, Chinese-loving citizens
> of Tibet. In an extreme case, we could say that the Jews in Auschwitz
> were also shaping living Jewish culture at the time, but is that
> really an example you want to hold up as something desirable? I'm not
> suggesting that Lhasa is like Auschwitz, just that your argument has
> holes.
Fifty years of Auschwitz and millions of Tibetans? Sorry, you are
losing your credibility.
Don't believe me. How about Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona?
Rep. Matt Salmon was told that things were very repressive in Tibet.
He, a former Mormon missionary who speaks fluent Mandarin, decided to
took a look see himself.
What did he found?
First of all, he found that the countenance of the people seem pretty
good and
pretty happy. Secondly, in direct contradiction to widespread report
of
religious persecution. Salmon saw and spoke to hundreds upon hundreds
of
Buddhist monks worshiping uninterfered.
LT Lee
Correct me if I am wrong.
Spiritual pursuit by nature cannot be compared and judged on a single
set of standards. I hope you are not saying that your brand of
buddhism is a better religion objectively and therefore more effective
in propeling people toward inner achievements/spirituality.
> TIBETAN CULTURE: CULTURE DOES CHANGE WITH TIME. BUT THE CULTURE THAT
> I AM TALKING ABOUT IS THE INDIGENOUS CULTURE, THE ONE THAT PURELY
> DEFINES YOU AS A TIBETAN OR CHINESE. THUS, TIBETAN CULTURE IS ITS
> LANGUAGE(TIBETAN),RELGION(BUDDHISM)AND CUSTOMS. HOW CAN WE NOT SAY
> 'IT' IS AT RISK WHEN CHINESE IS GIVEN PRIORITY OVER OUR LANGUAGE, WHEN
> OUR NUNS AND MONKS ARE FORCED TO GIVE UP THEIR BELIEFS AND OVER
> HUNDREDS OF OUR MONASTERIES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED?
Do you think you are putting Tibetan culture at risk because you learn
English?
To be monks and nuns need capable citizens. A simple illustration: If
the capability/productivity of the Tibetans is low and 80% of them are
needed to grow food to feed the population, then at most 20% of the
population can be monks and nuns. If the productivity increases such
that 20% of the population are needed to feed the population, then 80%
of the people can be monks and nuns if they desire.
Take the long view. The government is trying hard to improve the
productivity of the region.
> HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY
> ALL THOSE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION GOING ON INSIDE TIBET? WHY WOULD
> HUNDREDS OF TIBETAN YOUNGSTERS AND ELDERS ALIKE FLEE TIBET EVERY YEAR
> AND TELL STORIES OF TORTURE AND UNHAPPINESS?
Human moved from place to place for good and for bad reasons. Esle we
will still be in Africa.
> WHY HAS CHINA HELD
> NGAWANG CHOMPEL CAPTIVE FOR ALL THAT HE WAS DOING WAS TO LEARN,
> EXPLORE AND PRESERVE TIBETAN FOLK MUSIC, A PART OF OUR CULTURE? NOW
> TELL ME, ISN'T CHINA UPTO DESTROYING OUR CULTURE? IT IS NOT A
> QUESTION OF WHETHER TIBETAN CULTURE OUTSIDE TIBET IS BETTER OR WORSE,
> WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PRESERVE WHAT IS INDINENOUSLY OURS.
My impression according to western and Chinese visitors is the
opposite. The economy is booming. Tibet is having a cultural
renaisance.
> OUR
> TIBETAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS INSIDE TIBET WORKING UNDER THE CHINESE
> GOVERNMENT HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO COMPLY WITH THE IMPOSED TACTICS. I
> DON'T BLAME THEM. WE ARE ALL IN THIS FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE.
Actually, if anyone should complain, they should. But I am not sure
they think like you. For example, you learn English and looks like to
have a good life. Why do you think they should not learn non-Tibetan
langauges to increase their capability/productivity?
> IF AGREEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCES ON BOUNDRIES ARE DONE UNDER FORCE AND
> REPRESSION, WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THAT AS LEGITIMATE? IF YOU HAVEN'T,
> READ SOME OF THE NON-CHINESE BOOKS ON TIBETAN HISTORY (NOT THAT YOU
> WOULD AGREE WITH IT) AND LET'S SEE WHICH HOLDS MORE TRUTH.
Please tell according to what law the current international boundary
is not legitimate.
Yu
>
> >Is Beijing really trying to
> > destroying Tibetan Buddhism as part of Tibetan culture?
>
>
> Have a look at this article, which explores the recent destruction of
> nuns and monks huts at Serthar, and the forced removal of their
> teacher. There are links to photos at the bottom of the page.
>
> http://www.savetibet.org/about/pressreleases/release_010926_Sertharupdate.html
The gov wants to put a cap on the monastry population at 1700.
By 2001 the Serthar monastry has a population of 7000.
The Gov explained that the crack down has to do with poor sanitation.
I believe that is true.
Now the truth behind the US made propaganda
-------------------
90% of Tibet propaganda are generated by 3 organizations:
International Campaign for Tibet
Tibet Information Network
Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy
The above web page belongs to the International Campaign for Tibet.
All three organizations receive funding from the US Gov's propaganda
organ the National Endowment for Democracy NED.
They leave no stone unturn in their quest to demonize China.
China's misery is seen as America's gain.
CC Tang
>
> >Is Beijing really trying to
> > destroying Tibetan Buddhism as part of Tibetan culture?
>
>
> Have a look at this article, which explores the recent destruction of
> nuns and monks huts at Serthar, and the forced removal of their
> teacher. There are links to photos at the bottom of the page.
Yolanda,
I'm familiar with Serthar through the TIN reports (which I keep up
with regularly).
> It looks to me like Beijing is interested in preserving the appearance
> of Tibetan Buddhism as a means to:
>
> 1. get tourist dollars
> 2. get world opinion off its back.
Let's talk about this theory, ok? It's a popular one, but let's sit
down for a second and discuss it rationally.
First, let's figure out exactly what has been done at Serthar: the
government has decided to limit the population of monks/nuns studying
there to 1,500. Everything else (expulsions, demolished homes) fall
within this category.
Serthar is in no way related to tourism. It is totally inaccessible
for foreign or domestic tourists, and there simply aren't any
attractions for tourists. (Small number of pilgrams, possibly... but
not significant compared to the numbers going elsewhere.) If China
had closed Serthar entirely, tourism would not have suffered a bit.
Restricting the monk population at Serthar to 1,500 rather than
closing it entirely isn't much of a public relations victory. Has
world opinion really been any less critical? Would Beijing have
expected it to be any less critical? If China had closed Serthar
entirely, world opinion would not have been any more strident than
what it is today.
Serthar remains today, and will hopefully recover as a religious
institution in the near future. I don't believe Chinese policies were
motivated by the two factors you named. I think Chinese policies at
Serthar are easier to interpret; they want to have control (of some
form) at all religious institutions. The political factor is one
issue (although Serthar was reportedly very apolitical), but just as
important, China would've wanted to control it for the same reason the
United States wants to control recreational alcohol use, moral
factors.
I don't mean to insult you or Tibetan Buddhism with the comparison...
but the moral view from Beijing is that religion is acceptable (just
as alcohol is in the United States), but can be dangerous to the
health of her citizens if exposed to children at too young of an age
(similar to alcohol), or if consumed in too extreme of a form (similar
to alcohol).
Is this equivalent to destruction of Tibetan Buddhism as a religion?
That really becomes a matter of interpretation at this point... but I
don't believe so. It's about moderation and control... undesirable
and unfair, perhaps... but let's call it what it really is so we know
how to deal with it.
> This does not include any desire or action taken to Actually preserve
> or allow true Tibetan Buddhism, much the opposite.
I disagree. Were you aware that Tibetan monastaries continue to be
exempt from all taxes? Or that pilgrams to temples throughout Tibet
pay a nominal admission fee (something like 1 yuan), while tourists
pay 10-100 times more?
What of the Buddhism College in Beijing, established by the 10th
Panchen Lama?
The PRC's relationship with Tibetan Buddhism just isn't black and
white.
> Though you buy
> into the PRC claims that His Holiness is a political creature, the
> Tibetans, and most of the world, to be frank, sees him as a
> fundamentally spiritual person whose credibility is so strong and
> position so respected by Tibetans and others that he has had the
> political thrust upon him, and taken it in order to serve his people.
A "political creature?" I don't think you and I disagree so much
here. I've never alleged the Dalai Lama was a politician
first-and-foremost who's using Tibetan Buddhism to achieve his
goals... I believe he's as you said, a wise/spiritual perosn who had
political duties thrust upon him at a young age. I don't think Shakya
would disagree with that, either.
But regardless, the point is that he does have a political agenda
(which you do not deny). And one of his purposes is to achieve that
political agenda. Is he credible? Sure, on many matters... but does
that mean he's politically objective or fair? You can't really
believe that.
I don't have any interest in demeaning the Dalai Lama or his
teachings. But there's no shame in pointing out that the Dalai Lama
is a spiritual leader, not a disinterested historian.
Brian Jackson
ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote:
>Spirituality is different from religiosity. Tibetan is not more
>spiritual than any other race or ethnicity.
Agree with the first statement. I see you have generated much interest
in discussing spiritual matters here, I will stay out of that one for
now. Everyone has a somewhat different idea of what it means, but I
will say that humans seem to have the whole range of being spiritually
oriented - all the way from very, to not very at all. Various ways of
grouping people - by culture, or nation, or any other - may show a
mixed range of spiritually oriented life, or a propensity toward or
away from it. I don't think this is too objectionable, or much of a
revelation. Many people around me are much more spiritually oriented
than I am, in certain other places I don't feel this. I don't see the
objection to referring to the Hopi as "deeply spiritual people" - it's
clearly a general and not a universal statement - nor that the Badui
of West Java are "deeply spriritual people" (extremely so), and I do
not understand your objection to Eckholm referring to "the culture of
Tibet's deeply spiritual people."
I think you are looking too hard for demonisation, and a bit too quick
to take offence. To have taken it as implying a "different kind of
human", (i.e. different from all other humans), much less as implying
something negative toward Chinese, it seems like an over reaction and
somewhat contrived.
Brian
--
"If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific
needs, it would be Buddhism. Buddhism has the characteristics of
what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it
transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers
both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense
aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual,
as a meaningful unity." - Albert Einstein
LT Lee
> In article <5eb15984.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote:
>
> >Spirituality is different from religiosity. Tibetan is not more
> >spiritual than any other race or ethnicity.
>
> Agree with the first statement. I see you have generated much interest
> in discussing spiritual matters here, I will stay out of that one for
> now. Everyone has a somewhat different idea of what it means, but I
> will say that humans seem to have the whole range of being spiritually
> oriented - all the way from very, to not very at all. Various ways of
> grouping people - by culture, or nation, or any other - may show a
> mixed range of spiritually oriented life, or a propensity toward or
> away from it. I don't think this is too objectionable, or much of a
> revelation. Many people around me are much more spiritually oriented
> than I am, in certain other places I don't feel this. I don't see the
> objection to referring to the Hopi as "deeply spiritual people" - it's
> clearly a general and not a universal statement - nor that the Badui
> of West Java are "deeply spriritual people" (extremely so), and I do
> not understand your objection to Eckholm referring to "the culture of
> Tibet's deeply spiritual people."
>
> I think you are looking too hard for demonisation, and a bit too quick
> to take offence. To have taken it as implying a "different kind of
> human", (i.e. different from all other humans), much less as implying
> something negative toward Chinese, it seems like an over reaction and
> somewhat contrived.
Brian, the question is simple. Do you think some races/ethnicities are
more spiritual? If not, why call one people deeply spiritual as if
other people/ethnicities are not spiritual.
Imagine this.
What will be the response if the following statement appears in New
York Times?
"African Americans who moved into the white neighborhood play down
their negative impacts on the culture of the white Americans, a deeply
spiritual people."
I am quite sure many will cry "Racism" if the deeply spiritual people
are those who also advocate an American homeland for the white people.
In reality, many of these "Free America" (free America from colored
people) supporters are very spiritual. They will have no problems
quoting the Bible and history proving white homeland is God's will and
America's tradition.
Bill Carter
LT Lee wrote:
> Brian, the question is simple. Do you think some races/ethnicities are
> more spiritual? If not, why call one people deeply spiritual as if
> other people/ethnicities are not spiritual.
Well, I'll butt in here a little since this is getting interesting. You
seem to be mixing people, ethnicities, and culture all together as
though they were the same thing. I propose that people (human beings)
are essentially the same everywhere. Yes there are many individual
differences between people but this doesn't appear to have anything
to do with ethnic origin such that you could make a generalization.
This is particularly evident here in the US where immigrants from all
over the world live in close proximity with each other.
Culture is a different story. A culture is almost an organism unto
itself. It is shared among many people, has something of a "lifetime",
and while it will have many recognizable characteristics it will change
as time passes. Frequently a culture is localized to particular
geographic regions, and people of a certain ethnicity may live there
and be a part of it. Obviously if people leave the company of practitioners
of their culture they can lose it, perhaps adopt another one.
A culture can come under attack and be killed. These days a culture
can just be overwhelmed and fade away like a species becoming extinct.
> "African Americans who moved into the white neighborhood play down
> their negative impacts on the culture of the white Americans, a deeply
> spiritual people."
Here you mix religion with culture, and imply that blacks have one
particular culture and whites another. Culture isn't pegged to a
particular ethnicity. I know black people who are as British as the
queen, or Creole, or South American. Religion is largely apart from
culture though it obviously plays a part in shaping cultures and
vice versa. Frequently a shared culture will be the basis for the
formation of a country. Countries which are sharply divided along
cultural lines are the ones which have the most internal conflict.
> I am quite sure many will cry "Racism" if the deeply spiritual people
> are those who also advocate an American homeland for the white people.
> In reality, many of these "Free America" (free America from colored
> people) supporters are very spiritual. They will have no problems
> quoting the Bible and history proving white homeland is God's will and
> America's tradition.
Now LT Lee is telling us what is spiritual, it seems to be a very broad
definition. If someone quotes the Bible they must qualify. Always he
is attacking religion for some reason.
Tibet was geographically isolated until modern times. This led to a
strong localization of the culture. The Chinese are intruders, its as
though loggers had set up shop in a rain forest and declared they
were bringing economic benefits to the trees. Actually the comparison
seems very apt. All sorts of lumber and minerals flow from Tibet
to China. What flows from China to Tibet is people.
LT Lee
> LT Lee wrote:
> > Brian, the question is simple. Do you think some races/ethnicities are
> > more spiritual? If not, why call one people deeply spiritual as if
> > other people/ethnicities are not spiritual.
>
> Well, I'll butt in here a little since this is getting interesting. You
> seem to be mixing people, ethnicities, and culture all together as
> though they were the same thing. I propose that people (human beings)
> are essentially the same everywhere. Yes there are many individual
> differences between people but this doesn't appear to have anything
> to do with ethnic origin such that you could make a generalization.
> This is particularly evident here in the US where immigrants from all
> over the world live in close proximity with each other.
>
> Culture is a different story. A culture is almost an organism unto
> itself. It is shared among many people, has something of a "lifetime",
> and while it will have many recognizable characteristics it will change
> as time passes. Frequently a culture is localized to particular
> geographic regions, and people of a certain ethnicity may live there
> and be a part of it. Obviously if people leave the company of practitioners
> of their culture they can lose it, perhaps adopt another one.
> A culture can come under attack and be killed. These days a culture
> can just be overwhelmed and fade away like a species becoming extinct.
I don't think we have any disagreement so far. My objection is simply
this: No people, used as a singular, is more spiritual than other.
>
> > "African Americans who moved into the white neighborhood play down
> > their negative impacts on the culture of the white Americans, a deeply
> > spiritual people."
>
> Here you mix religion with culture, and imply that blacks have one
> particular culture and whites another. Culture isn't pegged to a
> particular ethnicity. I know black people who are as British as the
> queen, or Creole, or South American. Religion is largely apart from
> culture though it obviously plays a part in shaping cultures and
> vice versa. Frequently a shared culture will be the basis for the
> formation of a country. Countries which are sharply divided along
> cultural lines are the ones which have the most internal conflict.
America is multi-cultural country. There are many cultures, black,
vietnamese, Chinese, Korean. All of them cultures of deeply spiritual
peoples. I see nothing wrong with multi-culturalism. Do you?
> > I am quite sure many will cry "Racism" if the deeply spiritual people
> > are those who also advocate an American homeland for the white people.
> > In reality, many of these "Free America" (free America from colored
> > people) supporters are very spiritual. They will have no problems
> > quoting the Bible and history proving white homeland is God's will and
> > America's tradition.
>
> Now LT Lee is telling us what is spiritual, it seems to be a very broad
> definition. If someone quotes the Bible they must qualify. Always he
> is attacking religion for some reason.
Are "Free America" supporters spiritual?
They are devoted to their God. They seek revelations from God. They
disciplined their body and mind such that they will always follow the
teaching of the Bible. They support "Free America" because they love
their fellow citizens and do not want their spirituality be polluted
by those colored people. They don't hate the colored peoples. They
only think they don't belong in the U.S., their promised land of
Canaan from God.
In addition, they are for freedom. They consider the U.S. government a
fearsome foe because the government restricts their religious freedom
and speech freedom and right of self-determination.
Are they spiritual? Of course they are.
And more. A comparison with "Free America" and "Free Tibet" movements
reveals the following:
1. Same spirituality factor. Preseve the culture of deeply spiritual
people.
2. Same set of objections toward the government: restriction of speech
and religious rights and self-determination.
3. Samilar goals:
"Free Tibet" = Free from non-Tibetan chinese.
"Free America" = Free from non-White Americans.
Coincidence. May be. More likely, the similiarities reflect same
fundamentalist mind set. No wonder America is considered not spiritual
according to certain poster.
> Tibet was geographically isolated until modern times. This led to a
> strong localization of the culture. The Chinese are intruders, its as
> though loggers had set up shop in a rain forest and declared they
> were bringing economic benefits to the trees. Actually the comparison
> seems very apt. All sorts of lumber and minerals flow from Tibet
> to China. What flows from China to Tibet is people.
Yeah, very funny. Tibet is located in the tropic.
Bill Carter
LT Lee wrote:
> I don't think we have any disagreement so far. My objection is simply
> this: No people, used as a singular, is more spiritual than other.
Would you say that a particular culture could be seen as more spiritual
than another? That would be a more reasonable statement I think, and clearly
Tibet can be identified as having a distinct culture (prior to the Chinese
invasion at least) due perhaps to centuries of geographic isolation. Also
we know that the Buddhist religion infused Tibetan culture for quite some
time, they became intertwined.
Would you say that China (apart from Tibet) has a spiritual culture? I would
say that in general it doesn't. Perhaps it did at one time. The current trend
appears to be anti-religious and avidly material. The dialectic materialism
of communism wiped out much of Chinese spiritual culture and now the
movement into capitalism continues the process. The quashing of Falun Gong
is a recent example.
> America is multi-cultural country. There are many cultures, black,
> vietnamese, Chinese, Korean. All of them cultures of deeply spiritual
> peoples. I see nothing wrong with multi-culturalism. Do you?
Wait a sec. Up above you were saying that no singular group of people
are more spiritual than another, now you claim that this list of cultures
are "of deeply spiritual peoples". Are all cultures deeply spiritual?
If they are then the word becomes very undescriptive.
> Are "Free America" supporters spiritual?
>
> They are devoted to their God. They seek revelations from God. They
> disciplined their body and mind such that they will always follow the
> teaching of the Bible. They support "Free America" because they love
> their fellow citizens and do not want their spirituality be polluted
> by those colored people. They don't hate the colored peoples. They
> only think they don't belong in the U.S., their promised land of
> Canaan from God.
I don't know anything about this "free America" thing. No offense but
I think I should review their position for myself before responding
to your personal and possibly biased characterization of it. Give
links to a website or two. There are religious extremists in the US
and there are rascists. No doubt some of them think they are spiritual
as well. This drifts very far from the issue of Tibetan people and
their understandable desire to preserve their own unique culture.
> In addition, they are for freedom. They consider the U.S. government a
> fearsome foe because the government restricts their religious freedom
> and speech freedom and right of self-determination.
>
> Are they spiritual? Of course they are.
Are they? It would be a matter of personal opinion, not an absolute.
There are a lot of different kinds of people in the US, a wide variety
of viewpoints are tolerated. How many viewpoints are tolerated in
Tibet? Would the idea of autonomy or even independence be something a
person could voice in public as is accepted in the US? Here you can even
say that all black (or white, or yellow) people should be deported.
As long as you don't advocate or commit violence you can promote
your viewpoint.
> Coincidence. May be. More likely, the similiarities reflect same
> fundamentalist mind set. No wonder America is considered not spiritual
> according to certain poster.
I don't consider America particularly spiritual myself, the general
culture is geared towards material gain and consumption. I find it
lacking in many ways, obviously other people feel the same. That's one
reason Tibetan culture and religion are held in high regard here.
Comrade Yu would have everyone believe that support for the Tibetan
cause is all a CIA plot meant to thwart the rightful conquests of
the great imperial China. Even if that were true its obvious that no
amount of government encouragement could generate the degree of popular
support we see in the West for human rights in general and the Tibetan
cause in particular. In fact the US government is largely domininated
by corporate interests, they don't care a thing about Tibet one way or
the other.
> > Tibet was geographically isolated until modern times. This led to a
> > strong localization of the culture. The Chinese are intruders, its as
> > though loggers had set up shop in a rain forest and declared they
> > were bringing economic benefits to the trees. Actually the comparison
> > seems very apt. All sorts of lumber and minerals flow from Tibet
> > to China. What flows from China to Tibet is people.
>
> Yeah, very funny. Tibet is located in the tropic.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Did you not grasp my analogy?
Or are you saying that physical resources are only available in the
tropics? Or am I taking a remark that was given very little thought too
seriously? The internet is so confusing.
LT Lee
> > LT Lee wrote:
[...]
> Are "Free America" supporters spiritual?
>
> They are devoted to their God. They seek revelations from God. They
> disciplined their body and mind such that they will always follow the
> teaching of the Bible. They support "Free America" because they love
> their fellow citizens and do not want their spirituality be polluted
> by those colored people. They don't hate the colored peoples. They
> only think they don't belong in the U.S., their promised land of
> Canaan from God.
>
> In addition, they are for freedom. They consider the U.S. government a
> fearsome foe because the government restricts their religious freedom
> and speech freedom and right of self-determination.
>
> Are they spiritual? Of course they are.
>
> And more. A comparison with "Free America" and "Free Tibet" movements
> reveals the following:
>
> 1. Same spirituality factor. Preseve the culture of deeply spiritual
> people.
Excerpts from SOLDIERS OF GOD: White Supremacists And Their Holy War
For America by Bushart, Craig, and Barnes, 1998:
"This is probably the most important aspect of the separatist
movement," Lee explains. "Racial survival. This is the message Paster
Bulter preaches. This is the cause I've been working for the last
twenty years. Not hatred of other races but love of one's own. I don't
see anything wrong with that. I believe that any white man anywhere on
earth should know there's a homeland for him, where he can come and be
with others of his kind. I belive the United States of America should
be that homeland."
It is not the individual race's place, or lack of place in society
which is entirely at issue for the Identity Christian. Instead, the
underlying issue is the subjugation and eventual destruction of God's
chosen people, White Israel. Identity again becomes the issue, or the
perceived loss of identity. And this is not just an issue, or the
perceived loss of identity. And this is not just an issue of physical
racial identity, but of spiritual identity. As Mike Hallimore has
point out, consistent with Seedline doctrine, Adamite are "spirit
men."
[Lee = Charles Lee, a former industrial painter from the Beaumont/Port
Arthur area, Grand Dragon of the White Camelia Knights of the KKK of
Texas as the printing of the book. Pastor Bulter is the pastor of
Church Jesus Christ Christians. Mike Hallimore is of Kingdom Identity
Ministries of Harrison, Arkansas.]
> 2. Same set of objections toward the government: restriction of speech
> and religious rights and self-determination.
> 3. Samilar goals:
> "Free Tibet" = Free from non-Tibetan chinese.
> "Free America" = Free from non-White Americans.
> Coincidence. May be. More likely, the similiarities reflect same
> fundamentalist mind set. No wonder America is considered not spiritual
> according to certain poster.
It is obvious that both the "Free Tibet-ers" and "Free America-ers"
see racial purity as the pre-requisit for spiritual pursuits. Tibetan
Buddhism for the Tibetans and fundamentalist Christianity for the
Americans.
In addition, both groups share a distinct outlook: Different races are
locked into an forever antagonistic relations. Racial and cultural
separation are the only answer after they cannot totally dominate.
Multiculturalism is inconcievable.
LT Lee
> LT Lee wrote:
> > I don't think we have any disagreement so far. My objection is simply
> > this: No people, used as a singular, is more spiritual than other.
>
> Would you say that a particular culture could be seen as more spiritual
> than another? That would be a more reasonable statement I think, and clearly
> Tibet can be identified as having a distinct culture (prior to the Chinese
> invasion at least) due perhaps to centuries of geographic isolation. Also
> we know that the Buddhist religion infused Tibetan culture for quite some
> time, they became intertwined.
>
> Would you say that China (apart from Tibet) has a spiritual culture? I would
> say that in general it doesn't. Perhaps it did at one time. The current trend
> appears to be anti-religious and avidly material. The dialectic materialism
> of communism wiped out much of Chinese spiritual culture and now the
> movement into capitalism continues the process. The quashing of Falun Gong
> is a recent example.
No. No people is more spiritual than another.
The long term global trend is more secularization. But religiosity is
not spirituality. Secularization only pushes people to seek and
fulfill their spirituality elsewhere. Falun Gong is indicative of the
Chinese people's spirituality. Falun Gong is quashed because it is
harmful.
> > America is multi-cultural country. There are many cultures, black,
> > vietnamese, Chinese, Korean. All of them cultures of deeply spiritual
> > peoples. I see nothing wrong with multi-culturalism. Do you?
>
> Wait a sec. Up above you were saying that no singular group of people
> are more spiritual than another, now you claim that this list of cultures
> are "of deeply spiritual peoples". Are all cultures deeply spiritual?
> If they are then the word becomes very undescriptive.
Yes. That is my point.
> > Are "Free America" supporters spiritual?
> >
> > They are devoted to their God. They seek revelations from God. They
> > disciplined their body and mind such that they will always follow the
> > teaching of the Bible. They support "Free America" because they love
> > their fellow citizens and do not want their spirituality be polluted
> > by those colored people. They don't hate the colored peoples. They
> > only think they don't belong in the U.S., their promised land of
> > Canaan from God.
>
> I don't know anything about this "free America" thing. No offense but
> I think I should review their position for myself before responding
> to your personal and possibly biased characterization of it. Give
> links to a website or two. There are religious extremists in the US
> and there are rascists. No doubt some of them think they are spiritual
> as well. This drifts very far from the issue of Tibetan people and
> their understandable desire to preserve their own unique culture.
I had added some quotes under under another thread. But "Free America"
is at your backyard. You can easily seek them out and decide for
yourself. According to what I read. They are trying to forge a new and
more spiritual man, a new Adam. Some of them must meditate long and
hard to demonstrate the White folks are indeed God's new choosen
people and America is the new promised land.
Their search and their effort are genuine.
Should their search for spirituality justify they goal of separatism
racial purity? Similarly, should the Tibetans' search for spirituality
justify their goals of separatism and racial purity?
> > In addition, they are for freedom. They consider the U.S. government a
> > fearsome foe because the government restricts their religious freedom
> > and speech freedom and right of self-determination.
> >
> > Are they spiritual? Of course they are.
>
> Are they? It would be a matter of personal opinion, not an absolute.
> There are a lot of different kinds of people in the US, a wide variety
> of viewpoints are tolerated. How many viewpoints are tolerated in
> Tibet? Would the idea of autonomy or even independence be something a
> person could voice in public as is accepted in the US? Here you can even
> say that all black (or white, or yellow) people should be deported.
> As long as you don't advocate or commit violence you can promote
> your viewpoint.
All viewpoint will be tolerated by a government as long as it does not
pose a threat. Different government will have different threshold
depending on how proactive are they. Is America different? Look at the
responses after 9-11. People are locked up because of their ethnicity
and because they badmouthed the U.S.
> > Coincidence. May be. More likely, the similiarities reflect same
> > fundamentalist mind set. No wonder America is considered not spiritual
> > according to certain poster.
>
> I don't consider America particularly spiritual myself, the general
> culture is geared towards material gain and consumption. I find it
> lacking in many ways, obviously other people feel the same.
If Americans are not deeply spiritual, how can anyone, including you
feel lacking in many ways? Can an artistically challenged correctly
determine whether a painting is lacking or not?
> That's one
> reason Tibetan culture and religion are held in high regard here.
What have you done in comparing Tibetan and American cultures?
Please tell what make you thinks Tibetans are more spiritual than
Americans.
> Comrade Yu would have everyone believe that support for the Tibetan
> cause is all a CIA plot meant to thwart the rightful conquests of
> the great imperial China. Even if that were true its obvious that no
> amount of government encouragement could generate the degree of popular
> support we see in the West for human rights in general and the Tibetan
> cause in particular. In fact the US government is largely domininated
> by corporate interests, they don't care a thing about Tibet one way or
> the other.
World wide interest in Mickey Mouse and other Walt Disney characters
do not prove that they are something real except in people's
imagination. Tibet is real place and Tibetans are real people.
Fictions about real place and real people are still fictions.
> > > Tibet was geographically isolated until modern times. This led to a
> > > strong localization of the culture. The Chinese are intruders, its as
> > > though loggers had set up shop in a rain forest and declared they
> > > were bringing economic benefits to the trees. Actually the comparison
> > > seems very apt. All sorts of lumber and minerals flow from Tibet
> > > to China. What flows from China to Tibet is people.
> >
> > Yeah, very funny. Tibet is located in the tropic.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Did you not grasp my analogy?
> Or are you saying that physical resources are only available in the
> tropics? Or am I taking a remark that was given very little thought too
> seriously? The internet is so confusing.
Everywhere trees are cutted down to make furnitures and to build
houses and temple and etc. Needless to say, some cut down trees with
more fore thought and some less. But it is verged on rediculous to
compare tree cutting in Tibet or elsewhere with logging in a huge rain
forest. Tell you what. Logging in the Amazon does not take a lot of
people. A certain company had proposed to build hugh factory ship
which can mechanized logging and further processing to a large degree.